Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1NC
The affirmative must defend a statutory or judicial restriction of restrictions on the
presidents warfighting powers in one or more of the topic areas.
Statutory restriction requires legislation
Blacks Law Dictionary 2013
(ONLINE LEGAL DICTIONARY 2
nd
Edition, http://thelawdictionary.org/statutory-restriction/)
What is STATUTORY RESTRICTION? Limits or controls that have been place on activities by its ruling
legislation.
Judicial restrictions are done by the courts
Peterson 91 (Todd D. Peterson, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington University,
National Law Center; B.A. 1973, Brown University; J.D. 1976, University of Michigan, Book Review:
The Law And Politics Of Shared National Security Power -- A Review Of The National Security
Constitution: Sharing Power After The Iran-Contra Affair by Harold Hongju Koh, New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press. 1990. Pp. x, 330, March, 1991 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 747)
Based on both case law and custom, it is hard to argue that Congress does not have substantial power to
control the President's authority, even in the area of national security law. From the time of Little v. Barreme,
n77 the Supreme Court has recognized Congress's power to regulate, through legislation, national
security and foreign affairs. No Supreme Court case has struck down or limited Congress's ability to limit the President's national
security power by passing a statute. n78 Although there may be some areas where the Court might not permit
statutory regulation to interfere with the President's national security powers, these are relatively
insignificant when compared to the broad authority granted to Congress by express provisions of the
Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court. n79
Even in cases in which the Court has given the President a wide berth because of national security
concerns, the Court has noted the absence of express statutory limitations. For example, in Department of
the Navy v. Egan, n80 the Court refused to review the denial of a security clearance, but it concluded that
"unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude
upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security [*762] affairs." n81 In other cases,
of course, such as Youngstown, n82 the Supreme Court has clearly stated that Congress may restrict
the President's authority to act in matters related to national security.
Not even Koh's bete noire, the Curtiss-Wright case, n83 could reasonably be interpreted as a significant
restriction on Congress's authority to limit the President's authority by statute. First, as Koh himself
forcefully demonstrates, Curtiss-Wright involved the issue whether the President could act pursuant to a
congressional delegation of authority that under the case law existing at the time of the decision might
have been deemed excessively broad. n84 Thus, the question presented in Curtiss-Wright was the extent
to which Congress could increase the President's authority, not decrease it. At most, the broad dicta of
Curtiss-Wright could be used to restrict the scope of mandatory power sharing on the ground that the
President's inherent power in the area of international relations "does not require as a basis for its
exercise an act of Congress." n85
Even the dicta of Curtiss-Wright, however, give little support to those who would restrict permissive power sharing on the ground that Congress
may not impose statutory restrictions on the President in the area of national security and foreign affairs. Justice Sutherland's claims with respect
to exclusive presidential authority are comparatively modest when compared with his sweeping statements about the President's ability to act in
the absence of any congressional prohibition. n86 He asserts that the President alone may speak for the United States, that the President alone
negotiates treaties and that "[i]nto the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." n87 It is in this
context of the President's power to be the communicator for the nation that Justice Sutherland cites John Marshall's famous statement that the
President is the "sole organ of the nation" in relations with other nations. n88 This area of exclusive authority in which even permissive sharing is
inappropriate is limited indeed. When he writes of the [*763] need to "accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory
restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved," n89 Justice Sutherland refers to the
permissibility of a broad delegation, not the constitutional impermissibility of a statutory restriction.
Indeed, the Court specifically recognized that Congress could withdraw the authority of the President to act and prohibit him from taking the
actions that were the subject of the case. n90
To be fair to Koh, he would not necessarily disagree with this reading of Curtiss-Wright; he clearly
believes that Congress does have the authority to restrict the President's national security power.
Nevertheless, Koh's emphasis on Curtiss-Wright still gives the case too much import. Oliver North's
protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no Supreme Court authority, including the dicta
in Curtiss-Wright, that significantly restricts the power of Congress to participate by statutory edict in
the national security area. Thus, contrary to Koh's model, Curtiss-Wright and Youngstown do not stand
as polar extremes on a similar question of constitutional law. To be sure, they differ significantly in tone
and in the attitude they take to presidential power, but the cases simply do not address the same issue.
Therefore, it does Koh's own thesis a disservice to suggest that the cases represent different views on
the scope of permissive power sharing. There simply is no Supreme Court precedent that substantially
restricts Congress's authority to act if it can summon the political will.
The absence of judicial restrictions on permissive power sharing is particularly important because it
means that the question of statutory restrictions on the President's national security powers should
for the most part be a political one, not a constitutional one. Congress has broad power to act, and
the Court has not restrained it from doing so. n91 The problem is that Congress has refused to take
effective action.
Presidential war power = the presidents authority to conduct war as commander-in-
chief.
Howard 1 - 38 Hous. L. Rev. 261, * Copyright (c) 2001 Houston Law Review Houston Law Review
Spring, 2001 38 Hous. L. Rev. 261 LENGTH: 16940 words COMMENT: COMBAT IN KOSOVO:
IGNORING THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION NAME: Gerald G. Howard
[*270] The issue, then, becomes one of defining and monitoring the authority of the political leader in a
democratic nation. Black's Law Dictionary defines " war power " as "the constitutional authority of
Congress to declare war and maintain armed forces, and of the President to conduct war as
commander-in-chief ." 45 The power and authority of United States political leaders to conduct war
stems from two documents: the United States Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. 46 One
must understand each of these sources of authority to properly assess the legality of the combat
operations in Kosovo.
Violation: The aff claims to advocate the crash site of the drone that is not a
restriction and is not done through judicial or statutory means
A.) Limits not defending judicial or statutory restrictions means that there is no cap
to what constitutes as a restriction. Screws the neg predictable ground is obliterated
because links come from the two restrictions only thing we are guaranteed to have.
B.) clash it is the only way to truth test what the affirmative has presented this
means that the arguments we lose on are not a result of us being bad but rather that
the work we have done is centered around the question of restrictions and not
baudrillards thoughts on the hyper real.
C.) Effective Deliberation- On a topic about war powers the question of effective
deliberation is particularly pertinent---debate is not the site to directly drive political
change, but rather it helps inculcate the requisite skills to leave the debate space
better prepared to advocate for the good, however that good may be defined---as
such, you should vote for the team that actualizes debates potential to equip
students with the faculties to advocate for change---this is only possible by instituting
deliberation through a set of practices.
The word resolved before the colon means the plan must be enacted in a legislative
forum, thats a quote from the Army Officer School 04.
(5-12, # 12, Punctuation The Colon and Semicolon, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)
The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive:
Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers:
(colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael
Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle
[Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) c. A formal quotation or question: The President
declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? d. A second independent
clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear
Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g. A formal
resolution, after the word "resolved:"Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor
United States federal government should means any discussion of the plan should
be about the consequences after the government enacts it, literally
Ericson, 03 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts California Polytechnic U.,
et al., The Debaters Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains certain key elements, although they
have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1. An agent doing the acting ---The
United States in The United States should adopt a policy of free trade. Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of
value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb shouldthe first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An
action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy
into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade,
for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing
diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The
entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative
side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.
Should indicates obligation or duty
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 8 (should, 2008,
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk)
should
modal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. 2 used to indicate what is probable. 3 formal
expressing the conditional mood. 4 used in a clause with that after a main clause describing feelings. 5 used in a clause with that expressing
purpose. 6 (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7 (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.
USAGE Strictly speaking should is used with I and we, as in I should be grateful if you would let me know, while would is used with you, he, she,
it, and they, as in you didnt say you would be late; in practice would is normally used instead of should in reported speech and conditional
clauses, such as I said I would be late. In speech the distinction tends to be obscured, through the use of the contracted forms Id, wed, etc.
And independently a voting issue for limits and ground--- negative strategy is based on
the should question of the resolution---there are an infinite number of reasons that
the scholarship of their advocacy could be a reason to vote affirmative--- these all
obviate the only predictable strategies based on topical action---they overstretch our
research burden and undermine preparedness for all debates
Aff conditionality without the plan text as a stable source of the offense the aff can
shift their advocacy to get out of offense which discourages research and clash
The Affs failure to advance a defense of the federal government substantially
increasing restrictions on war powers undermines debates transformative and
intellectual potential
Debate over a controversial point of action creates argumentative stasisthats key
to avoid a devolution of debate into competing truth claims, which destroys the
decision-making benefits of the activity
Steinberg and Freeley 13
David Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA, officer, American Forensic Association
and National Communication Association. Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. Advisor to
Miami Urban Debate League, Masters in Communication, and Austin, JD, Suffolk University, attorney
who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, Argumentation and Debate
Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, Thirteen Edition
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a controversy, a difference of opinion or a conflict of
interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a feet or value or policy, there is no need or opportunity for
debate; the matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate
"Resolved: That two plus two equals four, because there is simply no controversy about this statement. Controversy
is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions of issues,
there is no debate. Controversy invites decisive choice between competing positions. Debate cannot
produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For
example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants live in the
United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they
commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not
speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the
opportunity to gain citizenship? Does illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American
workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law
enforcement, housing, and businesses? How are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a
nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification card, or enforce existing
laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a
conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this debate is likely to be emotional and
intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question
and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively,
controversies are best understood when seated clearly such that all parties to the debate share an understanding
about the objective of the debate. This enables focus on substantive and objectively identifiable
issues facilitating comparison of competing argumentation leading to effective decisions. Vague understanding
results in unfocused deliberation and poor decisions, general feelings of tension without opportunity
for resolution, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the U.S. Congress to make substantial progress
on the immigration debate. Of course, arguments may be presented without disagreement. For example, claims are presented and supported
within speeches, editorials, and advertisements even without opposing or refutational response. Argumentation occurs in a range of settings from
informal to formal, and may not call upon an audience or judge to make a forced choice among competing claims. Informal discourse occurs as
conversation or panel discussion without demanding a decision about a dichotomous or yes/no question. However, by definition, debate
requires "reasoned judgment on a proposition. The proposition is a statement about which competing
advocates will offer alternative (pro or con) argumentation calling upon their audience or adjudicator to
decide. The proposition provides focus for the discourse and guides the decision process. Even
when a decision will be made through a process of compromise, it is important to identify the beginning
positions of competing advocates to begin negotiation and movement toward a center, or consensus
position. It is frustrating and usually unproductive to attempt to make a decision when deciders are unclear as
to what the decision is about. The proposition may be implicit in some applied debates (Vote for me!